can I go back to my old job, employees share an office and don’t get along, and more

by Alison Green on February 20, 2025

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. I hate my new job — can I go back to my old one?

I worked at a company for over three years. Internally they have their issues and I had my share of frustrations, but it is basically a well oiled machine. As far as growth, there is not much, but I was paid well and had flexibility with my hours, although absolutely no work from home and an hour commute each way.

Three months ago, a colleague who worked with me at this company and left two years prior, asked me to send my resume to her so she could pass it along to her boss. She only had good things to say about her new company so I thought it was a no-brainer when I interviewed and got the job with a 10% increase in pay and a hybrid schedule.

I started the new job three weeks ago, and I am absolutely miserable. I miss my old job, my work, even the colleagues and the frustrations. I am mourning my old life and I want it back. I am also upset with this colleague who presented this new position to me because there are a ton of red flags and it is not a happy place like she said. I really did not plan to be in a position to now be searching for work, but here I am. Do you think it’s worth reaching out to my old manager and seeing if they will accept me back in my old role? As far as I know, they still have not filled the position. I was a good employee there but had a couple minor complaints about personal stuff — too much socializing with another employee, bad attitude during times of stress, but never any issues with my work or work ethic.

I am depressed and having trouble sleeping and eating, completely consumed with how to get back to my old job. Please help!

How much of this is about missing the old job and/or the discomfort of change, and how much is about truly not liking the new job? It might be 100% the latter, but I can’t completely tell from your letter — so I want to make sure you’ve thought that through, because sometimes it can be the change itself and/or missing what’s familiar and comfortable that’s more of the issue. If that’s the case, the solution is to give it more time so that this job starts feeling more comfortable to you, too.

But if you’re confident the problem is the new job and it’s not right for you … you can certainly contact your old manager and ask about the possibility of your coming back. Sometimes people do that! They might or might not be open to it (too much socializing and bad attitude during times of stress could be pretty minor or they could be pretty big), but there’s nothing wrong with asking. Keep in mind that they’ll probably want some assurance that you’ll stay for a while and not immediately be looking again.

There’s also a third option, of staying where you are while looking for a new job (not going back to the old one), which would give you some time to see if you get more used to the new company while you’re actively working on other options. Right now you’re so focused on missing the old job in comparison to the new one that there’s a risk you’re not thinking critically about the frustrations you had there.

It might also be interesting to talk to the colleague who recruited you about what your experience has been at the company so far. It’s possible she’ll have some insight that will change your perspective, or at least help you sort through why you’re having such a different experience there than she’s had.

Related:
I just started my new job and I miss my old one — did I make a mistake?
how to ask for your old job back

2. Instructor said, “Just lie back and think of England”

I am a woman in a mostly male field, if it matters. Recently I was taking an online course to pursue a certification (which I got! Woo), and the instructor made a comment about ignoring something. Specifically he said, “Just lie back and think of England.” I thought that was a horribly sexist/gross thing to say! Especially as an instructor! (For the record, I think “open kimono” is equally appalling.)

I sent him an email that afternoon remarking about my thoughts and advising him to look up that particular phrase and how it could be offensive. I never got a reply, and then felt awkward completing the class for the next few days. Was I out of line?

No, that’s a gross and inappropriate phrase for an instructor to use. For anyone who’s unaware of its origins, it comes from a suggestion that a woman should submit to sexual activity from her spouse even if she’d prefer not to, because of her duties as a wife (and patriot!).

You were not out of line to point that out, and he should have replied to thank you (or at a minimum to say he didn’t mean to make anyone uncomfortable and would be more aware of his language in the future, or so forth). His silence says something about him, not you, and you don’t need to feel awkward.

3. Is expecting an interview on very short notice a bad sign?

Yesterday, at 4:45 pm, I received an email requesting an interview for today between 9 am and 11 am or at 2 pm. I also received a phone call around 10 minutes later. I responded to the email around 5:05 pm, stating I’d be available at 9:15 am today for an interview.

I did not receive a reply until this morning at 8:45. The person scheduling the interview said they were sorry they didn’t see my email earlier and asked if I could do 2:30. I can’t so I emailed back saying no and gave other days/times I could.

She responded saying that the program director is going on vacation tonight, so they’d like to schedule something today and asked if I could be available at 9:30 or 10 today.

While I understand a vacation making things difficult to schedule, I am getting a bad taste of this organization and the job. What say you? Is it a bad sign for this kind of rush job?

Nah, not really. It’s annoying — and if they’re going to email you at the end of the workday proposing an interview for the start of the following day, they really need a plan for checking email that evening to see if you chose that time — but it doesn’t necessarily carry any larger message about the company. It could be a disorganized scheduler and nothing else, or just a rush for legitimate reasons to see if they can get some of the interviews done before the director leaves. It’s not necessarily anything bigger than that.

If you can’t be available on their short notice, you can’t. But I wouldn’t read much into it. If you advance in the process and continue to see signs of disorganization or of “my emergency needs to be your emergency,” that would be different.

4. Two employees share an office and don’t get along

I am a new supervisor and have recently had three employees move under my supervision. At the same time as this transition, two employees moved into a shared office space. (This was a decision made by upper management and it makes sense based on their job duties.) The problem is these two employees do not get along whatsoever and frankly never have. “Sharon” is extremely passive-aggressive when given advice on dealing with situations and is running around the whole company complaining about everything from the shared office to flat-out saying rude things about “Lisa.” It’s extremely unprofessional and needs to stop.

I plan to have a sit-down meeting with Sharon to talk about these issues. I want her to understand I will not tolerate this behavior. I suspect she will put blame on Lisa. She’s mentioned Lisa saying things like “you didn’t give me condolences when my mother-in-law passed away” or “I don’t believe my plants were the cause of your so-called allergies.” These comments very well could have happened, so I also plan to sit down with Lisa. I just don’t know the appropriate way to respond when that’s brought up, because while that’s an issue that needs to be addressed, it doesn’t excuse the negativity that she’s spreading around the company.

You should hear her out about Lisa in case there’s something truly egregious that you need to know about and address. But then you should say, “I will be talking with Lisa separately, but this meeting is about my expectations for your behavior and I’m asking you to focus on that right now.”

5. How honest can I be that I need more WFH days if I’m going to stay?

I currently work from home one day a week. Due to a lack of affordability in our area and the space we need, my family have decided to move out of the town where my office is based, a 1.5-hour commute away.

I would like to request an extra day working from home. My bosses have been very lukewarm-to-negative about remote work, but on the other hand there are other people in the office working more remote days than I would be requesting, albeit in a different department.

So I’m going to request the extra day, but how honest should I be about what the impact of the decision would have on me staying with the company? They are entitled to say no to to the request, but the reality would be that I would start looking at new jobs. How honest should I be about that?

It depends 100% on how valued you are and how much capital you have. The more they’d be upset to lose you, the more up-front you can be — and even then I’d frame it as “this is something that would let me happily stay with the company long-term,” not as “I’ll need to start job-searching if you say no,” particularly since you can’t control how long that search will take. A decent manager will read between those lines without you having to spell it out more explicitly than that.

You may also like:
{ 260 comments }

{ 260 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Ask a Manager* Post author

    A reminder: We’ve had a recent increase in trolling here, and you can help me by NOT RESPONDING to it. If you engage, you are ensuring that troll will reappear.

    Instead, please flag the comment for me (just reply with a link, which will send your comment to moderation so I’ll see it). If you want, one person can respond “reported” so others know it’s been dealt with. But please do not engage. Thank you.

    Reply ↓
  2. mango chiffon*

    LW 3: I often schedule interviews on behalf of my teams and usually if something like that timing happens, it’s usually because there is pressure to schedule it quickly based on internal staff schedules or you are the last in a series of candidates and they don’t want to lose another candidate who interviewed much earlier and pushing off the decision to the next week could be risky. Personally, I hate having to do this to a candidate, but it’s often out of my hands as I am just scheduling based on what the hiring manager wants.

    Reply ↓
    1. Edwina*

      That’s understandable, and I assume if you offered sometime a time slot starting at 9am, you would check your email earlier than 8:45am. That’s the part that irks me about the OP’s situation, and I can see why OP was wondering if it was a red flag. I agree with Alison that one would need more information to know if it’s a symptom of dysfunction, but that was careless at the very least.

      Reply ↓
      2. Falling Diphthong*

        Yes, it’s a yellow flag. It’s not “run screaming for the hills” and might just reflect that someone who is usually efficient had too many balls in hand, or that the email system gave in to a quixotic desire to rearrange when things arrive. But through another lens, it’s a little microcosm of setting someone up to fail. So I’d be alert for other data points that fit that pattern.

        (From a past letter: There was a boss who spent the interview checking his email. OP got the job, and he was a great boss, and he was always on his email through every meeting–so the interview was a clear look at what it would be like to work with him, but it didn’t mean anything deeper about dysfunction. Just that that was how this manager stayed on top of his flood of email.

        Reply ↓
      3. Cyborg Llama*

        We don’t know that the timing problem was about when they checked the email. They asked her to do the afternoon so it may very well be about how the interviewer was trying to organize their day. In the end, they asked her to push back the interview time by 15 minutes and were accommodating so I don’t see what the big deal is. I’d rather work for a place that honors personal time than one that treats everything as an emergency.

        Reply ↓
          1. Hlao-roo*

            I think I see where Cyborg Llama is coming from. In the 8:45am email, the company offered a 2:30pm timeslot. But when the OP replied they couldn’t do 2:30 and offered other dates and times, the company responded “that the program director is going on vacation tonight, so they’d like to schedule something today and asked if I could be available at 9:30 or 10 today.” Presumably 9:30 or 10 am, so 15-45min later than OP’s suggestion of 9:15am.

            Reply ↓
            1. Cyborg Llama*

              Yes, where they landed was 9:30 or 10:00. They’re allowed to offer the time that’s more convenient for themselves (afternoon) but were flexible about it.

              Reply ↓
            2. Yorick*

              That would be fine except that this was after 8:45am (at the earliest!) and it’s possible LW couldn’t have even gotten to their office in time for 9:30.

              Reply ↓
      4. learnedthehardway*

        Agreeing – this is on the recruiter, not the company.

        I wouldn’t take it as a red flag about the company.

        Reply ↓
    2. el l*

      Agree, and honestly I think people are focusing too much on the play-by-play here of what scheduler should have done etc.

      What I think should be more telling for OP: What TONE did scheduler use? Was it “Of course you’re available whenever works for us!” Or, is it a more deferential, “Hey, I know this is all incredibly short notice, thanks for your patience – is there a chance you’re available at 2?”

      Because clearly scheduler and organization are all busy, if they have any sense at all they’ll assume OP is busy too – and when you deal with busy people you gotta know that making requests on short notice means risking disappointment.

      Reply ↓
      1. Qwerty*

        Even if the tone isn’t great, I feel like this is more an isolated situation rather than an indicator of how the company operates overall. It can be common for recruiters to be left out of the loop or be hourly employees or merely be rather green. Not a great experience for the candidate, but the alternate way of looking at it is that really wanting to get a candidate in front of higher-up before a trip is usually a sign they like that candidate.

        Reply ↓
  3. RCB*

    #3: There may be legitimate reasons for all the various crazy things, BUT sending you an urgent email and then not bothering to check for your response until the next morning says that they just don’t have it together, that was a choice and someone is not going to fun to work for/with. And that’s if you give all of the other items the most generous benefit of the doubt possible, and that seems like a stretch.

    Reply ↓
    1. mango chiffon*

      I often schedule interviews and when I was non-exempt, sometimes waiting longer for a reply we don’t know when to expect could push us into overtime we were not allowed to take without express permission from our managers. It’s not a great system, but did want to offer a reason why this could happen.

      Reply ↓
      1. Roland*

        I think that falls under the team as a whole “not having it together”. Since again, this short-term pressure was created by the employer, so whether the person didn’t remember to check their email or wasn’t allowed is a failure either way.

        Reply ↓
        1. Smithy*

          While I get this impulse, and would certainly put it in the orange flag category – if this is a larger employer – it’s very likely to see scheduling managed by HR, and the hiring manager on another team. This division can inevitably add delays and make processes take longer, up until the point where there are tight/crunch timelines.

          Whereas it’s easy to interpret the email shortly followed by a phone call as pressuring or disorganized – it’s just as easy that it’s someone on the HR team who’s hourly doing their best to figure out scheduling before they have to clock off.

          Ultimately, if working somewhere with an HR team that can make certain things take longer or perhaps is just clunky is really unappealing to someone – then sure, it can be a stronger red flag. But having worked on two teams where it was common to complain about those types of things with HR, it really didn’t have a significant impact on when I was happiest or unhappiest with my job. So on its own, it would be an orange flag to me, but hardly a red one.

          Reply ↓
          1. Annony*

            If they need to schedule the interview the next day and aren’t reaching out until 4:45 pm, they need to assign the task to someone who is not hourly. It reflects poorly on the company that they did not. Either this task is urgent and important enough for someone higher up to handle or it isn’t and they are being unrealistic in their expectations that the candidate bends over backwards because of someone’s vacation.

            Reply ↓
            1. Smithy*

              I interviewed for one job where the hiring manager was close to going on maternity leave. The reality was that there was a real pressure in trying to go through the full hiring process, so that someone would be able to start before the hiring manager when on leave.

              Ultimately it ended up taking longer, I started after she left on leave – but as awkward as it sometimes made the hiring process it just really wasn’t a long term impact at the job.

              Clearly for some people, for some industries – this is a red flag. But on the list of not ideal things that employers do while hiring, I wouldn’t rank this above the ghosting and blowing past hiring timelines. I just think that these types of situations happen less frequently.

              Reply ↓
    2. Shiara*

      In fairness to them, they did try to call. And the fact that they disconnect from email completely after 5:00 could actually be a good sign for working there, inconvenient and challenging as it is for the hiring process.

      Reply ↓
      1. Cmdrshprd*

        “And the fact that they disconnect from email completely after 5:00 could actually be a good sign for working there”

        In a lot of places that depends on if the person is hourly or salary. if the scheduler is hourly they might disconnect at 5pm sharp, but salary staff don’t. if OP is interviewing for a salary position it might not be as much stock.

        Reply ↓
        1. Edwina*

          Either way, if they want someone to come in early the next day, someone needs to check the messages/email the night before or early the next day.

          Reply ↓
          1. Alz*

            Or note it in the email requesting “can you come in at 9 (please note this mailbox isn’t monitored after 5pm or before 8am. If you respond outside of these times only the afternoon slots will be available)

            Reply ↓
            2. AnonInCanada*

              Or note in the email, “I apologize for the short notice, but if you’re receiving this email after 5 pm, please contact (alternative contact name/email/phone number) as I must leave at precisely 5 pm today.” Sorry, but not everyone is glued to their phones/computers and may not be immediately reachable. Because, y’know, life happens.

              Reply ↓
          2. Cmdrshprd*

            sure, my main point was that no answer after 5pm from an hourly admin, may not be a good barometer of work life balance for a salaried position.

            Reply ↓
      2. KateM*

        They may disconnect and they may even answer at 8:45 am, but then that answer needs to be “sure, we are waiting for you at 9:15”. If you offer interview starting at 9:00, you must be ready to meet at 9:00.

        Reply ↓
        1. Falling Diphthong*

          This. I’m honestly unclear what is the timeframe in which OP’s “Yes, I can do 9:15 tomorrow” would result in OP having an interview at 9:15 tomorrow.

          Reply ↓
          1. umami*

            That was my thought – they sent the interview windows to multiple candidates, and one of them answered the call and took the 9 am slot.

            Reply ↓
      3. Cyborg Llama*

        I agree with this. I think many people want the kind of service/ response that comes with never being of the clock while also saying how inhumane business is re hours.

        Reply ↓
    3. Allonge*

      For me the issue would be that this can be a specific person not having it together for these two-three days, or that one person not having it together, or the whole team / org not having it together for these days or in general.

      It’s not really possible to tell and the impact is vastly different long term.

      Reply ↓
      1. Smithy*

        Yeah – I think particularly with larger employers that have an HR team that manages a lot of these processes, there’s just not nearly enough information there.

        I was once going through interview with two similar organizations at the same time. One, I my HR contact I connected with really well, she stuck to her timelines, was very personable, answered a lot of questions, etc. The other job, the HR process was stiff, a bit awkward, never stuck to timelines, etc. However, job one ended up not being super transparent about salary despite the fact that I initially withdrew from the interviewing process over how low the salary was and the final offer was still lower than what I was currently making. The second job I took, and ultimately HR being slow and a bit irritating was still the same at the job. But the reality was it didn’t regularly impact my daily work life, and when I did need to work with HR, I knew what to expect.

        Reply ↓
    4. BethDH*

      We had something like this happen with a candidate, though I’ll add that I don’t think it was a good moment for us so I’m not defending it, just saying I don’t think it makes us overall disorganized to work with.
      It involved trying to hire during a particularly busy travel time for the person supervising the position, when two staff people went on medical leave at almost the same time unexpectedly, leaving the other staff trying to cover it until we could hire a temp and train. We needed to hire the role to start within two months (grant-funded position) so we couldn’t just wait for the boss’ schedule to calm down. It was a chaotic moment in a usually not-chaotic office and we dropped a lot of communication balls because we really weren’t used to that pace.

      Reply ↓
    5. Cyborg Llama*

      It seems like a lot of people have never tried to schedule something with a busy person. “9:15 doesn’t work anymore, can you do afternoon?” “Can’t do afternoon,” “Okay does 9:30 or 10:00 work?” is an email exchange that happens a billion times a day.

      Reply ↓
      1. a clockwork lemon*

        At my company, HR handles scheduling but they have no visibility into our calendars and we have very little insight into their processes. The nature of the work itself is chaotic because real-time issue management and incident response is huge chunk of what we do. It’s not great from the candidate side, but this also isn’t a good job for people who can’t roll with constantly shifting priorities and schedules.

        My current boss rescheduled with me three or four times when I was in the final rounds of my interview process and he’s the best boss I’ve ever had.

        Reply ↓
      2. Office Chinchilla*

        Agreed – I’m kind of horrified by the number of people who are horrified by this situation. Especially with the hiring manager going on vacation! That means they’re trying to also set a half-dozen meetings that have nothing to do with hiring, since I’m assuming they have a job that isn’t just “interview candidates.” I’m willing to bet the boss can make 9am meetings as long as they know they have to leave their house on time (which they didn’t), and 9:30 is possible but means the boss just walked in and hasn’t had a chance to combobulate yet so it’s not ideal, but if the ideal time of 2:30 doesn’t work then we’ll do what we have to do. And “give the scheduling duties to someone on salary” is an absurd suggestion, at least in my extremely-hierarchical industry.

        Reply ↓
        1. Liz Bender*

          I wouldn’t say I’m horrified, but I do see some yellow flags in this situation. I’m sure the hiring manager knew long in advance when their vacation was. So while I believe vacations are important and managers should get to take them too, this last minute scheduling still stands out. To me it says this company or manager values butts in seats more than finding the right butt for the right seat. Also, they squeeze in a last minute couple of interviews before vacation – will any of those candidates be memorable by the time they come back from vacation? Or were they planning to make an offer on the spot after 1 interview to the person who happened to be available on very short notice?

          Reply ↓
      3. umami*

        In this case, I read it as there were 3 times slots – 9 am, 11 am and 2 pm. By the following morning, the 9 am slot was already taken (probably by someone who took the late afternoon phone call), so it wasn’t possible for OP to have a 9:15 interview. All that was left was the 2 pm time slot. Not saying it’s ideal, but if they had three time slots, they probably had 2 or 3 candidates to slot in.

        Reply ↓
        1. fhqwhgads*

          I didn’t read it as by the following morning the 9 was taken. I read it as: 4:45pm, emailed OP to offer those slots. 4:55pm, called with same message. OP missed both live, but replied to the email saying yes to 9am. When that email was sent, the asker was no longer monitoring. At 8:45a the next day, when the asked became aware of OP’s reply, it was already too late for a 9a.
          Basically, it reads to me like this employer gave OP 15 minutes worth of business hours to respond.

          Reply ↓
  4. The Dude Abides*

    #3 reminds me of the time I drove to a second interview 350 miles away on less than a day’s notice.

    I was living in central Iowa (about 20mi NE of Des Moines), but had applied and done an initial interview for a job in central Illinois (~6 hours away).

    After the first interview (on a Monday), they said they’d follow up in two weeks. I reached out to inquire two Mondays later, and they asked if I could come in the next day for a second interview.

    I don’t think they realized what they were asking, but I did it. Got the job, but it was a dumpster fire (ironic, since it was for a…major trash company.

    Reply ↓
    1. Seal*

      I once had a half-day Zoom interview with an organization in another state. Due to the time zone difference, it was supposed to start at 8am my time; not ideal since I’m definitely not a morning person but doable. A day or two before the interview I got an email stating that due to an unexpected scheduling conflict they needed to start the interview an hour earlier, which was 7am for me. Since it was a week or so before the winter solstice and I live in the upper part of the Upper Midwest, my interview was now scheduled to start a full hour before the sun came up. Still doable since it was a Zoom interview, but having to get into interview mode in what felt like the middle of the night was rough, even with an ample supply of coffee.

      Reply ↓
      2. KateM*

        I live in a place that gets 6 hours of daylight around winter solstice. We start and end our workdays in darkness. :(

        Reply ↓
      3. Fíriel*

        I think I have you beat! I recently was informed of an interview that will start at 3:30 AM my time. When I suggested this might be a problem, they generously offered to push it to 5 AM.

        What they think any of us will get out of this experience, I truly do not know.

        Reply ↓
        1. I Have RBF*

          I keep getting meeting invites for 7 am my time. I start work at 9 am. I work remotely, so I am not even awake at 7 am.

          Reply ↓
          1. iiii*

            Same!
            I keep pointing out that while yes, I do regularly join a weekly call that starts at 6:30am, it is scheduled far enough in advance that I have set an alarm to get me awake for it. The requests for a 7am call that come in 3am? Not so much.

            Reply ↓
      4. Sillysaurus*

        It always boggles my mind how different people are. I was up at 4 this morning to run 2 hours in the dark before work. By 7 I’d gone for my run, showered, eaten 2 breakfasts (pre and post run), and watched half an episode of Love is Blind. Waking up and doing things in the dark to me is so normal to me!

        But to be fair, if you tried to get me to do anything work-related after 9pm I’d be useless. That’s bedtime.

        Reply ↓
  5. Daria grace*

    #1, unless there is something so incredibly egregious there’s no circumstances under which you can stay, I’d encourage you to give it more time (ideally a couple of months) to settle and see how you feel. Change can do strange things to our brains, especially when a substantial routine shift is involved. If you’re not eating or sleeping well that will especially impact your ability to make good judgements. Being new at a job is also often high on workplace annoyances like learning confusing new software and systems that will become less of a big deal over time. I’ve sometimes had bouts of weird nostalgia for objectively super toxic workplaces once in a much better role.

    Reply ↓
    1. Some Words*

      Agreed. In general, I’m miserable at new jobs. It’s not that the job is bad, it’s that change is uncomfortable for me and I hate being the person who knows the least. I feel like a pest who’s always asking too many questions, I don’t know anyone, etc. Really basic new employee stuff. Luckily I know that about myself so can reassure myself in my inner monologues. Time passes and those anxieties do too.

      LW, could you be experiencing something similar?

      Reply ↓
      1. froodle*

        yeah, same. it takes me about 6 months to decide if I like it or not – basically I need to get reasonably capable at *doing* the job before I can tell if I *like* the job

        Reply ↓
      2. Mockingjay*

        Agree. When I started at Current Job after leaving ExToxicJob, I was convinced the first week that I had traded one misery for another.

        The truth is, I brought all the issues and annoyances from ExToxicJob with me. I had to consciously focus on learning my new project and how New Company does things, while letting go of old fears. My mantra while onboarding: It’s not right or wrong, it’s just different.

        OP1, give yourself some time.

        Reply ↓
      3. Blue Pen*

        Yes! Starting a new job can be so, so hard. Learning the actual ins and outs of the job is one thing, but the complete severance from familiarity, routine, and your old network can really do a number on you. I’ve been at my job now for a year, and while I definitely have the hang of it, I still sometimes feel like the newbie because most of my colleagues have been working together for years—if not decades.

        Reply ↓
    2. HR Exec Popping In*

      Well said. It is very hard to change companies and our minds naturally resist change (you may want to read some of David Rock’s work on how to apply neuroscience to work). It has only been a few weeks at the new company so I would encourage you to give it some more time! I find that you really don’t have a sense of a new job and organization for at least 6 months.

      Finally, consider talking to your ex-colleague who reached out to you about the job and ask how they dealt with the transition.

      Reply ↓
    3. I'm just here for the cats!!*

      I agree, the OP needs to wait a bit longer. 3 weeks is hardly anything. You are still learning how everything works out.

      I’d like to know what are the red flags that they are seeing. There is a lesson that just because someone says the company is a good place to work doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do your own diligence.

      Reply ↓
      1. MigraineMonth*

        Yeah, without knowing what the red flags are, it’s really difficult to give advice. There’s a big difference between “I feel uncomfortable because it’s a huge change and now I have to learn how this new company/manager wants this job done” and “I think I might have joined a cult, I’ve been asked to swear an oath of allegiance to the CEO and there’s something called The Initiation scheduled for next week no one will answer my questions about.”

        Reply ↓
    4. Just a city worker*

      Agreed! I moved states a few years ago and left a job I absolutely loved, when I started my new job I was looking for new positions after the first day. I think the first three months in a new job are so hard, you always feel out of place and like you know nothing and like you’ll never be able to stop asking for help. But I stuck it out and now have been in my position for 3 years and love it just as much as my last position. It was just the change and having to be the new employee again after being an “expert” at my last position that threw me for a loop.

      Reply ↓
    5. Inksmith*

      Agreed. I was really sure for the first two months in my new job that I’d made a terrible mistake and killed my career. which wasn’t true at all, and while there’s still big aspects I’d like to change, it’s basically fine and I’m definitely glad I didn’t leave when I was just freaked out by the change.

      Reply ↓
  6. Heffalump*

    #2: Is “open kimono” the same idea as “lie back and think of England”?

    #4: Good for you for not brushing it off as a “personality conflict.”

    Reply ↓
    1. Edwina*

      No, I just looked it up to be sure, and it means to share sensitive or secret information that you don’t normally share with, say, another company – maybe due to a merger or something similar.

      Reply ↓
        2. Sharpie*

          While ‘open kimono’ does come across as sexualised, that might be a Western perspective… Men wear kimono, too.

          Reply ↓
          1. Golden*

            Right, I thought the saying was actually referring to a historical practice of revealing that you didn’t have any weapons, not anything to do with sex. I’ve never used it myself but have heard it in a business context.

            Reply ↓
            1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

              Yes, I thought it was sexual and borderline racist. Like I know I’m touching the line of precious here, but I think it’s like saying “see what’s under the kilt/sombrero,” or any turn of phrase that creates an image of a stereotype is not something for the office (at the least). Just don’t in the workplace.

              Reply ↓
          2. LunaLena*

            I have no desire to picture undergarments or people’s bodies in work settings, whether they are male or female. I had the misfortune of being at a meeting where the person leading the meeting used “open the kimono” two or three times. As the only Asian-American person in the room (and a woman), I found the phrase to be really cringy and grating. The historical context makes sense, but the image it conjures for the majority of people is not a good one, no matter what the original meaning was. Especially when the person was using it to mean “I want to be open and honest” and could have just said that instead of repeatedly saying “I really want to open the kimono here.”

            Reply ↓
            1. Lana Kane*

              I’ve actually never heard this phrase before and I also have no poker face, so I can only imagine what it would look like every time they said “I really want to open the kimono here”. If anyone is watching the current season of Traitors, I’d probably look like Carolyn.

              Reply ↓
          3. Sam I Am*

            I think it’s still not ideal, though, just like it’s more accepted now to refrain from using words like “powwow” in an unrelated work context. It feels culturally insensitive, at best.

            Reply ↓
    2. Scarletta*

      I’ve no idea about open kimono, but the phrase “lie back and think of England” is used a lot in the UK in a joking manner without suggesting anything sexual and is said by and to females as well as males.
      I’m curious as to whether the instructor is British or has had some influence from Britain. There are quite a few British social media fitness instructors I can think of who use a lot of innuendo and rather saucy language in their videos and they attract a lot of comments from viewers – male and female – on how funny and engaging they are. It may be a cultural issue or maybe context is missing, but here in the UK at least, that phrase is rarely, if ever, taken offence at.

      Reply ↓
      1. Jill Swinburne*

        Yeah, I had the same thought. British English speakers might use it in a joking way about getting through a task they don’t want to do (“I’m going to lie back, think of England, and get those dishes done.”). Still not really appropriate in the context given above though, not when you don’t know the people.

        “Open the kimono” I’ve only ever heard on this site, and I would absolutely find it offensive if I encountered it in the real world.

        Reply ↓
      2. Your Former Password Resetter*

        The fact that it’s clearly a sex thing should make it even more obvious that it’s really inappropriate for work. Especially for a trainer, who has a power imbalance and a captive audience.

        Reply ↓
        1. Chas*

          Yes, I’m from England and I would never use it at work, specifically because of the inference to sex. (Although I also don’t use it anyway, so people’s mileage may vary on this.) It miiiight be something I could imagine the jokey blokes who run our delivery/stores coming out with if they knew you well enough, but it certainly doesn’t strike me as suitable to say in an official training course!

          Reply ↓
          1. JustCuz*

            Lets normalize not saying phrases that insinuate how someone can/should disassociate during a forced sex encounter.

            Reply ↓
            1. Chas*

              I’m not sure if you’re referring to me in particular or if your comment got nested as a reply to mine by accident, but I wasn’t intending to normalize the phrase. I was just trying to be realistic about how likely it might be that anyone where I work would ever use it, since there’s a lot of people in the comments acting like this is a totally normal phrase to use here in Britain.

              My overall point was that while I think there ARE some people here who would probably say it, most professionals I know would have the sense not to use it at work or in a more professional context.

              Reply ↓
              1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

                I think JustCuz’ response is to Scarletta, which to me is a “wait, really” reply. People in England say it without it being sexual? I think people use the F word without it being sexual, ok. But you are using it to be shocking, to show extreme emotion…to describe not pleasant feelings in the most non pleasant way. And the same way with this term. But pretending it’s not an offensive/dirty phrase is naive.

                Reply ↓
                1. amoeba*

                  I mean… I use the f-word for waaaay weaker emotions than than. Like “oh, well f* it then” when I can’t be bothered or maybe “Oh, this is f*ing stupid” when I’m mildly annoyed. At work, I do try to only do that around the coworkers who are the same – and as we’re talking about UK vs US, yes, that’s mostly my English colleague! He’s pretty mild-mannered and polite, he just… swears a bit. As do I. No problem. (I am very careful in, like, interviews or important meetings, although I’m sure at some point a “sh*t” has slipped out…)

                2. JustCuz*

                  Yeah it was a nesting error. But words like suck and F*ck aren’t directly related to the connotation that women should accept being raped and are responsible for finding ways to endure it. Its a BIG difference LOL. Like the phrase isn’t about sex. Its about telling someone else to accept nonconsensual sex and/or all of its flavors (for the greater good, its your duty, all that oppressive shit).

            2. Jennifer @unchartedworlds*

              This is pretty much where I come down. I can believe that people say it without thinking of its origins, but as soon as you think of its origins, ick.

              I wouldn’t necessarily pick someone up on it – that would depend on context, including how the person meant it and what our relationship is. It would be one data point about the person, again inflected by how I think they meant it.

              (English person in England)

              Reply ↓
      3. Catagorical*

        In the context presented by the LW, it does come across as not only tone deaf but, yes, offensive. (US based) I’m not sure social media fitness instructors are equivalent. Presumably one could choose a fitness instructor that appeals, but taking a class for a certification, generally I’d expect one chooses the class and not the specific instructor.

        Reply ↓
      4. Rachel*

        I am in the UK and “lie back and think of England” is not something I’ve ever heard in any workplace. It would absolutely not be okay.

        Reply ↓
      5. linger*

        Can confirm, despite the origin of the phrase “lie back and think of England”, its continued use is more neutral and less overtly sexualised in Britain (and some former colonies; e.g. it has appeared in NZ television broadcasts without comment).
        It is currently about as gender-specific, and offensive, as “bend over and take it”. Which is to say, not entirely neutral on either scale (in that it denotes necessary acceptance of a power imbalance, with some [joking] comparison to a subordinate sexual role), but equally, not reaching any level that could result in censure.

        Reply ↓
        1. bamcheeks*

          “Bend over and take it” is actually a lot more offensive to me! “Lie back and think of England” immediately makes me think of my mum jokingly telling me to tidy my room.

          The “think of England” part is what makes it ridiculous and tongue-in-cheek, and I don’t know what the actual origin is but I ALWAYS hear it as advice from one woman to another sympathising on the inadequacies of a husband. It’s not from Oscar Wilde, as far as I know, but it’s that kind of vibe— it’s camp and presents marriage and the husband as objects of ridicule. So the vibe is always “we know [task] is ridiculous, but do it anyway”.

          Thst makes it a lot less overtly violent than “bend over and take it”, which is unequivocally about submission.

          But I also would not say either at work.

          Reply ↓
          1. Emmy Noether*

            Completely agree. I couldn’t quite put my finger on why one seems more comical to me, and the other more graphic, but your explanation makes sense. Both read as sexual references to me, though, and thus inappropriate for a lot of contexts, including work.

            Reply ↓
          2. londonedit*

            Yeah, I would say ‘bend over and take it’ is way less appropriate for a work situation! I’d say ‘lie back and think of England’ is really only ever used in a tongue-in-cheek way, I can’t imagine anyone here taking it seriously. That said, it’s obviously one of those things that isn’t necessarily going to translate for a non-British audience, so it’s not something I’d say unless I knew everyone would understand the tone behind it.

            Reply ↓
          3. Timothy (TRiG)*

            J. Draper, a fun historian, explains the origin in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYQsdrTMaLk. It’s commonly supposed to be advice from Queen Victoria to one of her daughters on her wedding night, but is actually far more recent than that. (Written in a private diary in 1912, not published till 1972, and not intended as marriage advice.)

            Reply ↓
          4. Jackalope*

            I’ve only heard it in a sexualized context where women are being told that sex will be miserable but they should just do their duty and let their husbands have their way with them because their job is to create more children for the benefit of England. So I would find it a very offensive statement and would be thoroughly put off by someone who used it, even in a different context.

            Reply ↓
            1. Irish Teacher.*

              Yeah, I usually hear it in contexts like “that guy is so sexist, he probably wishes we were back in the days when women were expected to ‘lie back and think of England'” so it wouldn’t seem neutral at all to me.

              It seems like others have a pretty different experience with it though.

              Reply ↓
          5. learnedthehardway*

            I see both phrases as equally offensive – they’re both referencing sex, power imbalances, and are respectively mysogynistic and homophobic in origin.

            It’s not rocket science that you don’t make comments at work that are egregiously offensive.

            Reply ↓
        4. Falling Diphthong*

          This seems to be an ongoing thing with words or phrases that have a clearly risqué origin–that in some contexts the word or phrase is PG rated and a metaphor and nothing graphic is meant, and in others people recoil.

          Reply ↓
          1. Hannah Lee*

            In this case, there’s an added element. Both these phrases don’t just invoke something “risqué “, ie sexual imagery, context that is not appropriate in most work environments.

            They also, as others pointed out, refer to power imbalances and forced non-consensual sex *and* do so in such away that indicates someone in the current situation should just submit, and let someone else’s will be done. THAT component is what really amps up the egregiousness.

            Like, why go to equating some random work requirement to sexual assault or someone submitting to unwanted sexual contact out of “duty”, I mean, “needs must” is right there if someone is absolutely set on digging up an old idiom.

            Reply ↓
        5. Annie2*

          Just as another data point, to my ears “bend over and take it” would be quite shocking in a work context, to the point that I can’t imagine anyone saying it in my corporate west coast environment.

          Reply ↓
        6. Ace in the Hole*

          I would also be pretty unhappy with someone using “bend over and take it” at work, particularly to a captive audience. In fact, to me that’s worse than “lie back and think of England,” since it implies violence.

          Is it really that hard to just NOT use phrases about submitting to unwanted sexual advances while you’re at work?

          Reply ↓
      6. Amy Purralta*

        I’m from the UK but I haven’t heard of open kimono, but have heard of legs kimono, which is the same as lay back and think of England. To be fair when I hear Legs Kimono I actually think of the TV show League of Gentlemen.

        Reply ↓
      7. Nebula*

        I am British and I think it’s a highly inappropriate phrase to use in a work context. Innuendo-laden fitness instruction, maybe fine (I wouldn’t be into that, but whatever), but in a normal work training context, no. But apparently I’m in the minority here.

        Reply ↓
        1. Chas*

          For what it’s worth, I’m also British and agree with you! Maybe it’s a regional thing, but I don’t know anyone who uses “Lie back and think of England” unironically anymore.

          Reply ↓
      8. For England, James?*

        There are lots of words and phrases that are horribly offensive on one side of the Atlantic and perfectly innocuous on the other. For example, I have a friend with epilepsy whom most people I know would describe as having ‘fits’, which is a perfectly neutral way of describing his seizures in British English. This appalls another friend’s American spouse, who regards ‘fit’ as offensive or insulting; however, she initially referred to my friend as a ‘spaz’, which in British English is akin to calling someone a ‘retard’ or a ‘mongoloid’!

        My impression is that ‘lie back and think of England’ is so far removed from its original meaning that I would be inclined to ignore it, especially from someone born and raised in the United Kingdom. Others will no doubt disagree.

        Reply ↓
        1. Dust Bunny*

          American here: “Spaz” has been offensive since at least the 80s. I don’t know how old this person was but calling anyone that has been absolutely unacceptable since I was in elementary school.

          Reply ↓
          1. For England, James?*

            Interesting. She’s in her mid-thirties and is otherwise quite sensitive to any language which can be deemed offensive. I’ve heard it used fairly often on a lot of US shows from the 1990s and 2000s so perhaps it is a generational shift which has somehow passed her by…

            Reply ↓
            1. Fshface*

              (not arguing, just context)
              “Spaz” is so far removed from its origins in the US that, when it -was- in use a couple decades ago, it really only meant “airhead” or “bimbo”, and I was dumbfounded when I learned what it really meant (I’m around your friend’s age). To hear it actually used in reference to a disability would shock me just as much as “retard”. I hope your friend was really apologetic…

              Reply ↓
            2. Sam I Am*

              American also and I think it’s a stretch to say it’s been offensive since the 80s. When I was growing up, “spaz attack” was common slang. It’s definitely become less and less accepted since the early ’00s. It would be very strange to hear someone use it today.

              Reply ↓
      9. Ellis Bell*

        I mean, there is a way of using it completely non sexually and satirically, but you’re still referring to sex and as such you really, really have to know your audience. Like if I was talking to a good friend and they were being asked to do something ridiculous regardless of their feelings, maybe I might use it sympathetically “Oh god, are they asking you to lie back and think of England” to underscore that something is a stupid thing to ask of someone. I definitely wouldn’t use it in place of “so you should do it”! I do think it’s inappropriate for work, (but it wouldn’t draw gasps of shock in the UK, more like a slight roll of the eyes) and.. I probably wouldn’t use it with someone who isn’t British. You can’t say something is misunderstood because it’s British while using it internationally. If you do, expect them to take the phrase at face value. Also, if someone lets you know how it’s being received, in a way you hadn’t considered, that’s useful information! It deserves a response thanking them for the feedback and a decision going forward to not use it. It’s not like it’s so useful a phrase that people can’t do without it.

        Reply ↓
      10. boof*

        I think if it got shortened to “think of England” I wouldn’t bat an eye, personally, and I could see if someone was super used to it as a random social joke tossing it off in the wrong setting, but the full phrase really ain’t quite right for the professional environment.
        Open Kimono sounds like it’s origins aren’t debatable (ie similar to a handshake; to show there’s no weapons vs envisioning a woman disrobing for a new partner), but unless it’s somehow being genuinely used by Japanese and businesses in the “handshake” context it’s probably best not to propagate that. A brief internet search doesn’t make it sound like a common Japanese idiom. Any Japanese AAM readers able to say what you think of this phrases?

        Reply ↓
          1. LunaLena*

            I asked a few friends who either lived or currently live in Japan and speak the language fluently, including one who grew up in Japan. So far three of them agree that 1) this is not a phrase that originated in Japan, 2) even if it was, it would be incredibly awkward to say in Japanese, and 3) none of them had even heard of the phrase until I brought it up.

            Reply ↓
      11. JustCuz*

        LOL 20 years ago it was acceptable to use terms like circle jerk, the r-word, and bitch in the office in my industry. They don’t sound very fun and casual now do they? That’s because of the context behind them. The same goes for this. Pop culture has a lot phrases that need to be reconsidered, and people should be pushing back on them. “We have always done it this way” is never an excuse.

        Reply ↓
        1. Kay*

          I agree! I don’t like the “well it isn’t used that way anymore” argument when it is, well, a really really gross thing to keep saying.

          Reply ↓
      12. DisgruntledPelican*

        Americans use it in the same way. That doesn’t make it appropriate in this work setting.

        There are a lot of things I would say in my every day life that no one would take offense at that are inappropriate in specific work settings.

        Reply ↓
    3. stratospherica*

      re: open kimono – it appears to be similar to “open the books”, to share a company’s inner workings. I’ve never heard it in my life.

      Reply ↓
      1. Little Miss Helpful*

        My understanding is that “open kimono” refers to a traditional diplomatic ritual of opening the kimono to show your rival that you don’t have a hidden weapon. It would be offensive for perpetuating stereotypes or caricatures, not bc it’s sexual afaik

        Reply ↓
        1. But Of Course*

          In a non-Japanese context, since none of us live in feudal Japan and relatively few of us now alive live in Japan, it sounds both incredibly racist and sexist. I have trouble believing it’s actually necessary, in a world where “review the books” exists.

          Reply ↓
          1. fhqwhgads*

            Sure it’s a completely unnecessary phrase, but the point you appear to be replying to is not that the phrase is a-ok, but rather, let’s not incorrectly assume it is sexual and/or imply it is sexual when it never was.
            It’s a very weird phrase for the LW to have lumped in with the one actually being inquired about.

            Reply ↓
        2. Annie2*

          This is the kind of thing that like – does it matter what it *actually* originally arose from? I don’t know that context, and if someone said it to me I hear weirdly racial/sexualized undertones to it. Maybe those undertones aren’t intended but they’re coming through.

          Reply ↓
      2. Chocolate Teapot*

        In French there is the term “lever le voile” or lifting the veil which can be used in any context concerning providing information on something.

        Reply ↓
      3. Elsewise*

        A podcast I listen to had an episode many years ago where they used the phrase “part the kimono” to mean “be transparent”. They got some well-deserved pushback about the phrase, which none of them had really thought seriously about, and in their next episode had a whole segment where they talked about why it was offensive and workshopped what they could say instead. (I seem to remember they landed on “put the tiger on the table and yell at it,” which was mostly just nonsense but fun to say.)

        Reply ↓
        1. Goldfeesh*

          Was this the McElroys? I seem to recall put the tiger on the table used in one of their relatively more recent shows.

          Reply ↓
    4. JJ*

      Why are Americans allowed to say ‘it sucks” all the time, but the British can’t say “lie back and think of England”. The original meaning is super gross for both, but the usage is what defines how offensive it is.

      Reply ↓
      2. Magdalena*

        Because it comes across differently in different cultures? Presumably if the phrase were used commonly in OP’s company and widely accepted, they would have mentioned that, and it still would be worth objecting to.

        Reply ↓
      3. Czhorat*

        There is a wide range of things people are “allowed” to say.

        Some things which might be broadly permitted can be harmful to parts of your audience. if you know this to be the case then it’s better to find another idiom for “grin and bare it” than to insist on making part of your audience uncomfortable for some nebulous “free speech” principle.

        Reply ↓
            1. xylocopa*

              ohhhhh lol sorry, I just realized czhorat was using “grin and bear it” as an alternative to “lie back etc.” rather than criticizing the use of bear/bare it. Sorry to get pedantic at you!

              Reply ↓
          3. Allonge*

            You are right about the spelling; I think the sexual connotation comes in at what exactly you are supposed to be bearing while you are grinning.

            Reply ↓
            1. Lenora Rose*

              I’ve heard “grin and bear it” for things like getting a needle or doing exercises or chores, and there was never a connotation IME for the thing being endured being sexual. Especially since it’s the kind of idiom associated with stereotypes of the 50’s stay-at-home mom wrangling her kids. I see it more related to “a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down” rather than “lie back and think of England.”

              Reply ↓
          4. 1-800-BrownCow*

            Same. I’ve never seen it written as “grin and bare it”, only “grin and bear it”. Even my grammar corrector on here wants me to change it to ‘bear’ for the phrase.

            Reply ↓
        2. COBOL Dinosaur*

          Nothing sexual about ‘grin and bear it’

          Grin and Bear It Meaning
          Definition: To handle a problem or difficult situation with forbearance.

          Origin of Grin and Bear It
          The definition of grin is to smile broadly. However, it comes from the Old English grinnian, which means to show one’s teeth in pain or anger.

          One of the definitions of bear is endure.

          Reply ↓
      4. Irish Teacher.*

        I’m Irish, so possibly missing a lot of context here and we all have different assocations with phrases anyway, so this might just be me, but to me, those two phrases feel quite different. I’d never think of sex on hearing “it sucks,” probably because I came across that phrase being used to mean “it’s awful” long before I knew it had any relation to sex.

        But on hearing, “lie back and think of England,” I would think of it as meaning “just put up with poor treatment/don’t raise a fuss, for the long term benefits. Just think about something else and block out the negatives the way women in abusive marriages had to block out their suffering when submitting to their husbands.”

        This is probably because I’ve heard the second term far less and usually in contexts where it is referencing its historical context. I think I’ve heard it discussed more often as an example of how women were expected to submit than as some kind of harmless phrase, but to me at least, it hasn’t become divorced from its original meaning in the way “it sucks” has.

        Reply ↓
        1. Lexi Vipond*

          I’m Scottish and definitely think of it as taking the piss out of a certain kind of English attitude, but ‘in order to get something you want’ (i.e. children who will be the future of your country) is implicit in the phrase, so I don’t think it’s purely about abuse.

          Like bamcheeks above, I think of it mostly as something said between women in a slightly sarcastic way – which is obviously not the same as saying that it’s a good phrase for a male trainer to say to a woman he’s never met before!

          Reply ↓
        2. Silver Robin*

          American millenjal, born and raised, and only today did I realize “it sucks” likely has a sexual origin. That connotation has faded so much that a grumpy five year old is perfectly able to say “you suck!” in a playground tussle without anyone batting an eye. “This blows” is similar, though it is a bit dated and therefore just odd enough that I thought about it, but never looked to confirm.

          Reply ↓
          1. MigraineMonth*

            Another American millennial. I had a high school teacher who tried to get his class to stop saying it, which was the first time any of us realized it had a sexual origin. (I assumed that “teaching your grandmother to suck eggs” was sexual, but it isn’t.)

            Maybe “it sucks” is too sexual for the workplace as well, but there’s going to need to be a pretty significant education campaign just to get Americans to realize it’s sexual in the first place, and I have higher priorities.

            Reply ↓
            1. boof*

              lol yeah “teach your grandmother to suck eggs” I thought meant “tell someone more experienced/informed than you how to do something” aka calling them presumptuous/full of themselves

              Reply ↓
              1. Ace in the Hole*

                That’s exactly what it means – trying to teach someone something they’ve been doing much longer than you.

                But I can see where the misinterpretation comes from. “Eggs” is slang for testicles in some places, which gives a whole different meaning to grandma “sucking eggs.”

                Reply ↓
            2. xylocopa*

              Ha, yes, I had a high school teacher who wanted us not to use “sucks” because “he’d be embarrassed to explain what it means.”

              Now that I’m old and have teenaged kids of my own…well, I still think he was being a bit precious, honestly. I use “that sucks” all the time. The way the word is used is so divorced from its sexual meaning that it’s pretty hard for me to take his complaint seriously. But I do kind of get that he wanted to keep the classroom language a little less crude.

              Reply ↓
              1. I Have RBF*

                I use stuff like “That sucks boulders through a cocktail straw” to make it not sexual. Then again, I will also call stuff a “time suck”.

                Reply ↓
              2. Eff Walsingham*

                Gen X Canadian here. I had an old fashioned parent, and always told my friends not to say “pissed off” or “screwed up” in front her, out of respect, because she found them offensive. So I wouldn’t be inclined to use those expressions in a workplace, unless I’d heard them commonly in use there. And “sucks” is definitely a bridge too far for me – it seems somehow childish, casual, AND dirty, as if I really thought I was Bart Simpson. Not how I want to be perceived at work.

                Reply ↓
        3. boof*

          It’s a little odd in that I think sometimes the phrase is “close your eyes and think of england” which is a bit less overtly sexual – plus maybe it was meant as satire in the first place

          Reply ↓
      5. Morning Reader*

        We sucked the innuendo out of it back in the 80s or so. I remember teachers and parents trying to stem the tide of Bart Simpson by forbidding its use, but it had too much momentum.

        Reply ↓
        2. KitKat*

          Truly, I remember my mom’s campaign to get us to say “that stinks” instead of “that sucks” in the 90s, but I didn’t have any understanding of why other than that it was generically ruder/cruder (in the same way that saying “what the hell” was cruder than “what the heck”, it just WAS because in language there is a hierarchy of cursing/crude/polite language that is sort of independent of actual word meaning).

          I’m still honestly a little confused on what the sexual connection is supposed to be here. Like I can understand that the word has a meaning in a sexual context but I can’t quite draw the connection from the sexual meaning to Bart Simpson’s “that sucks.”

          Reply ↓
          1. Nah*

            I believe it’s a shortening of phrases like “this sucks [insert anatomy of choice here]”, with the connotation of giving oral being degrading and/or an unpleasant experience for the person doing the act.

            Reply ↓
        1. Tea Monk*

          Yes, I have a giggle every time someone yelld THAT’S NOT WHAT RAWDOG MEANS although the new meaning is certainly descended from the old. ” to do something without usual preparations” is the new. it used to just mean to have unprotected sex but now the meaning expanded. I probably wouldn’t use raw dog at work- I’m middle aged and I think everyone remembers the old meaning too well

          Reply ↓
          1. PhyllisB*

            That’s how I feel about the use of the term “crib” for where someone lives. I was horrified when that show was on the air and I forbid my kids using that term. They were puzzled until I explained the origin of the term but they told me to get with the 20th century.
            Luckily it’s not used as much now but I try just to overlook it when I do hear it.

            Reply ↓
            2. Ginger Beer*

              What is the origin of “crib” for where someone lives? I’ve never heard of and can’t find anything that explains why it is negative.

              Reply ↓
          2. Head Sheep Counter*

            Wait …. what? that word has changed? Really? 100% will hear it as a sexual reference of the most off putting variety… forever.

            Reply ↓
      7. Allonge*

        One difference is that ‘lie back and think of England’ is directly addressing someone else; ‘it sucks’ at least is not a targeted statement.

        Reply ↓
        1. JustaTech*

          That’s my thinking as well: the “it” in “it sucks” or the “that” in “that sucks” is rarely anything animate, but rather a situation.
          For example:
          “Oh no, it’s raining and my car is in the far far parking lot.” “Oh, that sucks.”
          The thing that “sucks” here is the situation: it is raining and you are going to get all wet walking to your car.
          For me at least that’s what eliminates the sexual nature of the comment, the thing that sucks is not a person, or even an object, so doesn’t have any agency.

          Reply ↓
  7. Cmdrshprd*

    OP 1 You have only been there 3 weeks, imo no job is what it likely will be in the first month or two.

    You are still training/learning company processes, getting to know coworkers/team/manager.

    I would try to take it one day at a time and set a check in for two or three months in.

    also not to arm chair diagnose, bus is it possible the depression was already there and the nes job made it worse and is negatively coloring your view of the job?

    I am curious what the red flags are and why you say it’s not a happy place. it is interesting you go into detail what made your old job great, but not really say what makes your current job bad. not a happy place can be very subjective.

    Reply ↓
    1. WoodswomanWrites*

      OP 1, it can be tough to go into a new job even when everything is going well. When I’ve started a new role, a big adjustment for me is going from being an expert at my old job to a beginner again. That can do a number on you. Might this be part of what is hard for you?

      Another factor is just getting used to a new place with new people, coming from a place where you knew everybody. It’s an adjustment to not know people well.

      On top of that, you’re depressed and not eating or sleeping, all of which can color your view of how things are going. I know that even in my job that I enjoy, if I haven’t eaten much or slept well, the job can be hard.

      You got a 10% raise and a hybrid schedule. Based on your letter, that’s not to be taken lightly. I hope you can see that you this isn’t an either/or of staying where you are or going back. You always have the option to look for something you’re genuinely interested in rather than returning to something that was just okay because it’s familiar.

      Reply ↓
      1. Been There*

        Agreed. Starting a new job is incredibly hard and stressful. It completely takes over your life those first few weeks.
        You need to give it time to get to know the job, your coworkers, your new environment, …

        Reply ↓
    2. londonedit*

      Yeah, I think three weeks is too soon to be able to fully judge the new job properly. I know that whenever I start a new job, I spend the first few weeks feeling like I’ll never get my head around everything, it’s all too difficult, and I just want to go back to the familiarity of my old job. And it’s really hard to judge whether it’s just that feeling, or whether there’s really something wrong with the new job (unless there are glaring problems like people shouting or sexual harassment or bullying or you’re suddenly being told you’ve got to stay until 10pm every night, or something).

      Of course, it might be the case that the new job really isn’t great. But I don’t think you can properly judge that when you’ve been there less than a month. It takes a while to get into the swing of things and feel like you know what you’re doing – and that bit before you get into the swing of things can feel quite scary.

      Reply ↓
    3. Sparkles McFadden*

      It always takes six months until I feel fully comfortable in a new place. Sure, I’d think about how I was comfortable in the former job, but then I’d change my internal dialog to remind myself of the things I didn’t have to put up with anymore.

      It’s particularly difficult in the first few weeks because you’re telling yourself that going back to the old job is possible and the window on that is closing. That’s more pressure you’re putting on yourself, which makes everything harder! It sounds like you negotiated a good deal for yourself and, unless the new place is an absolute dumpster fire, you will likely be equally content there in time. Just remember that whichever path your choose, you don’t have to stay in either place forever and can choose another direction in the future.

      Reply ↓
  8. JobSearchTimelines*

    I went back and read the comments on the linked post for #3. I was shocked by the number of people who found this type of thing totally normal.

    I have worked in tech for >30 years and, until my current job, never had a job last more than 2.5 years, with <1 year being more normal for full time jobs (hurray for layoffs). I've ended up doing a lot of contracting as well because often that's been what's available. All of this is to say that I have easily been on well over a thousand interviews. I have also been on the interviewing side a fair bit, probably 150+ times at various companies. I have had a small percentage of folks try for a short turnaround or expect instantaneous responses. I have only ever had one "this is when we're interviewing" experience – something framed as normal in the linked post by many if more than one person was needed on the interviewer side- and that was for a four week contract starting immediately that was time boxed by an unexpected end of fiscal year surplus making the funds available for use immediately or not at all. This has been true even though most of my interviews involved 3-5 separate sessions, some with multiple people at once.

    Yes, there are sometimes unexpected good reasons to be inflexible and it never hurts to check if something will, by chance, work. But it is not normal in the course of things. I would also see the offer of a couple of windows the next day as a sign that they were trying and see what happens next. If they continue to provide no notice or not work with you or expect immediate responses that would be more worrisome to me, but doing it once without explicit take it or leave it language is just mildly annoying, not unrecoverable.

    Good luck!

    Reply ↓
  9. Office Politics*

    OP4, I know the decision was made by upper management and you may have no choice, but putting two people who genuinely don’t get along in a shared office together by themselves is a genuine recipe for disaster. You are likely to lose not just one or both of these employees but also folks dealing with the spillover. Is there any way to split them up? Because, honestly, even if you take care of the immediate problem, it’s still going to fester because they will continue to resent each other and blame each other for being in the situation. It is not good.

    Reply ↓
    1. Despachito*

      Wouldn’t it be better to have them both gone then?

      Or at least the one who is behaving unprofessionally?

      As OP is describing it, the conflicts seem rather petty, Lisa has not done anything egregious and Sharon is here the one to blame (even if Lisa was horrible, running around the company and badmouthing her would not be the right solution).

      I’d definitely talk to Lisa but if push comes to shove I’d think Sharon would be the one to be let go (with Lisa it would depend on what I find out).

      Reply ↓
      1. Office Politics*

        1. It’s not clear that Lisa hasn’t acted badly or caused the externally visible tension

        2. I’m not talking about folks being let go, I’m talking about folks deciding to leave. And in my experience it’s likely you’ll lose the people fed up with Lisa and Sharon too/instead.

        3. If Lisa and Sharon are not having other issues, it would be hard to justify having to replace them just over social dynamics that likely could be fixed by separating them

        Reply ↓
    2. Rebecca*

      Lisa is actually going to be retiring within the next few months but I also anticipate Sharon having issues with anyone that she would have to work with so once Lisa is replaced I wouldn’t be surprised the cycle starts back over. Sharon will make rude comments about Lisa in ear shot of Lisa. It’s just overall creating such a negative environment.

      On the contrary are these remarks actually being made by Lisa? Potentially.. so it definitely will be addressed. Either way blasting her negative remarks all over the company is not appropriate.

      I should also add that one reason she has been moved is due to her frolicking all over the office, not getting her work done, distracting other employees. Her previous boss spent a lot of time outside of the office due to the nature of our work so it was hard to be managed.

      Reply ↓
        1. Silver Robin*

          agreed – maybe work on whatever process is needed to fire Sharon? If she has a history of poor professionalism and poor work, then that should be the next step.

          Reply ↓
      2. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        This is definitely a Sharon problem. There is more to doing a job than just the job itself, she needs to get along with others and not gossip. Because yes what she is doing is gossiping.

        For the immediate issue, if Sharon tries to transfer the blame to Lisa, put it back on her. This is a trick I use in court to show the judge who is willing to work on an issue and who isn’t. I ask both parties to say how they would rate the communication between them. Then I ask them what are some issues. This usually results in the other party going on and on about how great they are and all problems are caused by my client. Then I ask both of them — what can you do to improve communication? this puts the focus back on their own actions, what is in their control. Now they will still try to blame the other side and claim they are perfect. But I just drag it back to them. That’s what you have to do with Sharon. Ask her — what can you do to make the situation better? And every time she says Lisa, you say, this is about you not her. If she still won’t admit she has to change anything — well you come down hard and say this is a condition of your employment that you stop badmouthing her to others.

        Reply ↓
          1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

            It is. Because there is usually something you can do — even if its just disengage. That’s still a tangible thing within one’s own control.

            Reply ↓
            1. Slow Gin Lizz*

              Brilliant. Honestly, Sharon sounds like a nightmare and unless she makes some vast improvements doesn’t seem worth keeping employed in this position, imo. I see that Lisa will be retiring soon, but I don’t think that means that once Lisa is gone Sharon will become a stellar employee without any other beefs or complaints, I just think that she’ll find a new scapegoat to blame for why she isn’t getting her work done.

              Reply ↓
      3. Nasturtium*

        Putting two people who don’t like each other into an office will not make Sharon spend more time at her desk, it will drive her to wander more to escape the situation that makes her miserable.

        I have shared offices with other people without difficulties, but for a few years I was trapped in a shared office with someone whose work style was very different than mine. I do quiet concentration work and my coworker loved to talk (though not to me). She spent her whole day on the phone, and her conversations frequently drifted off into personal territory. Or she would invite someone in to meet with her about something, and after half and hour of work topics they’d spend another hour socializing. It drove me crazy when all I wanted was peace and quiet, and my only escape was to leave. And yes, I did sometimes vent to a coworker. We were both much happier when we were able to work in separate spaces.

        Reply ↓
        1. 1-800-BrownCow*

          We have a person at my job that talks all day long and spends more time socializing than doing actual work. Due to lack of office space in our growing company and this social employee being low on the totem pole, she has to share an office. And I don’t know if management just doesn’t put 2 and 2 together, but we’ve lost some great employees who were stuck sharing her office and got sick and tired of her disruptions and difficult personality, so they left the company.

          Reply ↓
      4. learnedthehardway*

        I would manage the behaviour you can see, to start. Lisa isn’t making these remarks. Sharon is.

        Regardless of whether Lisa is doing something that annoys Sharon or not, Sharon is behaving unprofessionally and inappropriately. She’s a bully. She’s doing her level best to make Lisa miserable. That in itself – regardless of anything Lisa may or may not have done – is a reason to put Sharon on a PIP. Add in her prior performance issues, and I would certainly be looking for ways to manage her out of the company (ie. fire her).

        In this case, I would have a very direct conversation with Sharon to let her know that her behaviour is unprofessional and inappropriate, and that she needs to get her act together. Lay out specific requirements (do not complain about Lisa to other staff, do not make nasty comments about her, do not mutter about her under your breath, think about whether you would like to be treated in whatever way you’re going to interact with her and do better) – and consequences. Hold her to them. (Make sure you have the authority to do whatever you plan to do, though – if you can’t fire her, then your options are more limited.)

        Sharon will no doubt try to justify her behaviour, but tell her that NOTHING Lisa may or may not have done is an excuse for behaving unprofessionally and inappropriately.

        My guess is that Lisa really hasn’t done anything besides existing. I mean, perhaps she has, but the Sharons of this world are bullies and bullies are going to find a target.

        Also, keep in mind that it is very hard to change people’s communication styles – passive aggressive people have learned to communicate that way – likely from childhood.

        Sharon is over the top and there are obvious things you can make her change, but her communication style is going to be a LOT harder. She may need direct, very specific coaching, along the lines of “Sharon, instead of saying ‘are you going to take all day with that report?’, say ‘When do you think you can send the report to me?’ This is a more respectful way of asking for information, and it avoids insulting your coworker’s work ethic.” That may be more retraining than you want to do.

        Reply ↓
  10. Jill Swinburne*

    #1 – what made you hand your resume to your former coworker in the first place and go through the interview process? There must have been some reason that you entertained the thought of moving on, so that might be something for you to examine.

    #2 – if anyone is wondering, the background of “lie back and think of England” is apocryphally the advice Queen Victoria’s mother gave to her on her wedding night.

    Reply ↓
    1. Not Australian*

      *Very* apocryphally indeed, because Victoria absolutely *loved* the sexual side of life and notoriously didn’t listen to a word her mother said after she succeeded to the throne.

      Reply ↓
      1. Emmy Noether*

        I mean, she could in theory have still given advice, even if it was neither heeded nor needed.

        Still fairly unlikely, though – attribution of this quote is a right mess. Seems more like it’s a 20th century joke with murky origins that was attributed to “victorians”, and then linked to Victoria herself.

        Reply ↓
        2. Falling Diphthong*

          Probably falls in with other “We’re so sexually open, not like those Medievalists/Puritans/Victorians” and then you do a college history class and, hey ho, when not edited down for a middle school audience it turns out these people were having sex, and had even worked out the major variations.

          Many people have come to history late in life, and discovered that when you put the sex scandals and hot gossip back in, it becomes exponentially more interesting. Historical people didn’t just spend their time thinking about Hawley-Schmoot.

          Reply ↓
          1. Strive to Excel*

            It’s a crying shame that Shakespeare is taught to high schoolers in the way it is. I remember Romeo and Juliet being SO BORING. Then we got to Hamlet in senior year and my English teacher didn’t hesitate to tech us aaaaaaall the innuendoes. The funny bits were suddenly a lot funnier.

            Reply ↓
            1. JustaTech*

              Absolutely the best part of reading Romeo and Juliet in 8th grade was my English teacher explaining the “do you bite your thumb at me sir?” bit by basically giving us all the finger, but in a subtle way.
              Middle schoolers *love* when teachers do something like that.

              Reply ↓
      2. Nodramalama*

        This is besides the point, but just because Victoria didn’t listen doesn’t mean it’s not advice her mother gave her.

        Reply ↓
  11. CityMouse*

    For #5, I’d really urge you only to take that move if you’re okay with quitting your job. If you’ve never actually experienced an over hour commute, I can’t emphasize how utterly exhausting it would be. So please really game out the drive during rush hour and be aware of what that will be like. Even 3 days a week would be a lot for many.

    Reply ↓
    1. KathyG*

      Seconded. Having done a 90-minute-each-way commute, under pretty good conditions (mostly going the opposite direction from the bulk of traffic), I can tell you it’s brutal. You’re losing 3 hours per day of your life. The added wear and tear on your vehicle, not to mention your body, adds up pretty quickly (as do the addional fuel costs). I will never, ever, do it again.

      Reply ↓
      1. Another librarian*

        I also use to commute 90 minutes against traffic, and it was terrible. If you have a 8-5 job, you are gone 12 hours a day. If it isn’t something you have ever done before, it can be grueling. I understand about affordable housing, but the closer you can get to work, the better off you will be.

        Reply ↓
    2. Lady Lessa*

      On the reverse side, I have little over an hour one way to work right now, and don’t mind the drive. Part of the reason is that most of it is turnpike and my tolls help keep the road in good condition both driving surface and snow removal.

      I listen to my favorite radio station and sometimes meditate.
      But I also live alone, and the cat only minds the commute when I go to a concert after work and don’t get home until 10 pm

      Reply ↓
    3. Claire*

      Though he didn’t say he was commuting by car. A long commute by train, where you can read, nap, do work, etc. is very different than a long driving commute.

      Reply ↓
      1. Strive to Excel*

        Even then – good to at least take a couple of days to map out what your schedule is like and how the public transit around you flows.

        I did this in college and it worked decently; half-hour drive to the park & ride, 1.25 hr bus commute to downtown. But it worked because I was functionally only ‘working’ 4-6 hours a day depending on class schedule. I also started regularly waking up 45 mins-1 hr before my alarm clock rang in what my doc thinks was probably a stress response to having to wake up early to hit the bus.

        Reply ↓
      2. JustaTech*

        Yes to this!
        In high school my family moved and I went from a ~45 minute driving commute to school to ~1.5hrs by train and subway and it was a *huge* improvement.
        Partly because I could actually read or do homework or hang out with my friends to decompress. Partly because I wasn’t trapped in a box with my brother, which almost always resulted in a fight. And partly because my parents were much less stressed out because we weren’t dealing with traffic.
        (Also being “on my own” and having at least the illusion of being in control was a great bonus, even if I knew I was going to catch the same train every day.)
        The few times my dad drove me to the subway rather than me taking the train were much more stressful because traffic is just more stressful.

        Reply ↓
      3. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Seconding all of these comments about how draining a long commute can be. I worked a job where my commute was over two hours each way via public transportation. It probably could have been an hour or 90 min had I been willing to drive but there was no parking and I’d have to pay for a city parking pass, which was a no-go on that salary. I ended up leaving a beautiful apartment that I loved so I could find one that was closer to work. That 20-minute bus commute was really nice, but I still miss the apartment I left. What made me decide to leave in favor of a short commute was that I didn’t see the point in living in a nice apartment if I was never actually *in* said apartment. I was home even less than 12 hours a day, taking into account various delays that usually occurred on the way home. And if I needed to run an errand on the way home I was gone even longer. It also got to the point where I didn’t ever want to do anything on the weekends because I just wanted to be home since otherwise I was never home and awake, which did a number on my social life.

        Reason I’m nesting this comment here is that sometimes long commutes via public transit are not all that great if you have a lot of connections so you can’t really zone out too much or if you are in a big city with lots of commuters and you will often have to stand during the trip. The long commute was nice only in that on the way into work I got off the train at the last stop and could sleep without worrying about missing my stop, and I’d knit on the train on the way home. The trip had two subway connections too, with rarely enough time to settle into a book or knitting and even more rarely actually getting a seat, so that was more effort and less relaxation that just sitting on a train the whole time would have been. I realized pretty quickly on the short bus commute that knitting was a no-go and I had to stand the whole ride more often than not.

        Added to commuting stress is the fact that the longer the trip is on the regular, the more likely it is that you will encounter issues and the longer any delays will be. So, say your commute is 10 min but there’s heavy traffic, you might end up driving 15-20 min, but if your commute is 90 minutes and there’s heavy traffic, you might end up driving 2 or 3 hours, which is just a LOT.

        Anyway, OP, best of luck in your work situation.

        Reply ↓
    4. WorkerDrone*

      Yeah, hard agree. I did this kind of commute for 8 years – 1 hour each way. I didn’t even realize how insidiously it undermined my entire life; energy, time, patience.

      Especially these days, when it seems like the roads are much more hostile/stressful than they used to be. I’m not sure that’s actually true everywhere, but I definitely saw a change in the drivers in my area pre-and-post COVID, with the drivers post-COVID being more impatient, ruder, careless, and thoughtless.

      More recently I’ve moved to a job 20 minutes away from my house and I am amazed at how much of my life has come back. I wasted a lot of good years to the commute exhaustion.

      Moreover, it’s EXPENSIVE. Gas, breaks, wear-and-tear, you have to buy cars sooner.

      Mark me down as another one who will never, ever do it again.

      Reply ↓
    5. Jennifer Strange*

      Not only that, but based on the fact that the LW refers to their “family” I’m assuming they have children. When my husband was working at a job that required a long commute he hated how much time he was missing with our daughter (and for me it was frustrating to have to be the one to get her ready in the morning, pick her up at the end of the day, and get dinner ready all by myself). It was a relief for both of us when he changed jobs.

      Reply ↓
    6. Head Sheep Counter*

      I drive 40-60 min in the morning counter-commute and 50-60 in the evening. Its the so darned tiring. The 17,000 miles on my new car is really a bummer.

      Reply ↓
  12. A Book about Metals*

    Maybe I’m missing something, but can someone please explain why Lie Back and think of England is problematic, or what it even means in the first place?

    Reply ↓
    1. ItsAlmostGardeningTime*

      ALICE, Lady Hillingdon, in her journal, 1912: “I am happy now that Charles calls on my bedchamber less frequently than of old. As it is, I now endure but two calls a week and when I hear his steps outside my door I lie down on my bed, close my eyes, open my legs and think of England.”

      Reply ↓
    3. Irish Teacher.*

      It’s basically about women submitting to sex they don’t want by thinking of something else. Like “of course you won’t want to have sex with your husband, but it’s your marital duty, so just lie back, think of something else and wait for it to be over.”

      I always kind of assumed it also implied that you are having sex for the good of your country, like to have children to fight for it or whatever, so sex is an unpleasant duty you have to do for your country and husband.

      Reply ↓
        1. Ms. Norbury*

          Yeah, I’ve seen it apocryphally attributed to Queen Victoria, as advice given to one of her daughters for her wedding night. As most of said daughters married royalty in other countries, it would make sense (kinda?) to frame it as something done for one’s country.

          Reply ↓
    4. Nodramalama*

      It’s effectively another way of saying “grit your teeth and get through it” but it’s a sexual reference. It refers to women not wanting to have sex with their husbands but having a patriotic duty to have children.

      Reply ↓
    5. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

      It literally means “accept getting screwed; thinking of the grand cause instead of your personal well-being or happiness.”

      Reply ↓
      1. boof*

        I always thought it was a bit tongue-in-cheek / never really meant seriously – looks like some online sources attribute it to really being popularized by french satire of British culture; still not quite work appropriate tho!

        Reply ↓
    6. Gritter*

      I’m English and here it’s regarded as a completely harmless phrase. Yes we are obviously aware of the origins, but we tend to view it in amusing ‘Carry on films/Benny Hill’ sort of way.

      You can absolutely use it in polite company and no one will bat an eyelid, in fact you’d get a chuckle out of it.

      In fact I’m rather surprised by Alison’s response, but I guess this is just one of these things seen differently across the pond.

      Reply ↓
      1. Time for Tea*

        Hmmm, not my experience. Especially coming from the mouth of a man in a position of authority, no matter how temporary that is.

        Reply ↓
      2. Dinwar*

        “I’m English and here it’s regarded as a completely harmless phrase.”

        Of course. These sorts of phrases were considered completely harmless in the past precisely because mocking women, minorities, and disadvantaged people was considered acceptable. Re-watch some episodes of Friends sometime to see that in action. No one batted an eye at that sort of thing in the 1990s, and people who did object were shouted down and at times violently silenced. We’ve grown as a culture–not much, perhaps, but a little bit.

        Secondly, how do you know people consider it completely harmless? Most people are unwilling to make waves, and thus keep discomfort about things like this to themselves. I saw a real-world example. I don’t often go into the office (100% field-based role until this year), and when I did I saw something that was…not what I considered work-appropriate, in several ways. (I’m being intentionally vague.) At the start of a meeting I made a point to ask about it, during our “general chat” portion, and made it clear that I thought it was out of line, as making waves is part of my job. Turned out everyone on the call agreed with me, but didn’t know if anyone else did so was afraid to speak up. Just knowing that someone else objected gave them permission to voice their objections, and the thing was removed shortly thereafter.

        It’s also one of the reasons why Pride campaigns were both so necessary and so successful. The dominant trends of society kept people silent, so no one had any idea how many homosexual, transgendered, queer, and other non-cisgendered-binary-monogamous people there actually were. Once they started throwing Pride Parades and campaigning for visibility people realized that there’s a lot of folks that fit under that flag. Once our culture realized just how many people there were, those jokes died out quickly.

        It’s not an “across the pond” thing either. For example, the band “Skyclad” has a song titled “Think Back and Lie of England”, about the problematic actions of the British Empire, and they rely on the fact that everyone knows this phrase is not nice for the lyrics to work (though the fact that it’s considered perfectly polite despite being pretty horrible may contribute to this). Maybe it’s regional; the gods know the USA has enough regional variation, and England has some pretty deep-rooted cultural divides, so it’s reasonable to think that maybe different versions would view things differently.

        Reply ↓
  13. Enn Pee*

    LW#1 – About 20 years ago, I got a new boss. She had previously worked in our organization, under a different management, but assumed things were the same general vibe as when she had worked there.
    They were not: her boss was mean, yelled at her in front of others (for things that weren’t her fault, etc.)
    The only reason she’d come back to our org was to get management experience; the pay level was roughly the same, and she’d had no big issues with the company she’d recently left.
    So she called her old boss, asked if she could come back, and they welcomed her back with open arms.
    Her case was a bit different than yours. She left specifically to gain management experience, and found that wasn’t as important as her emotional well-being.
    I’d recommend listing out pros/cons of each job. Also ask yourself: what would you be doing if your old job can’t take you back…and do THAT!

    Reply ↓
  14. A Book about Metals*

    It’s not that uncommon for people to return to an old job after leaving for supposedly greener pastures. No harm in asking, worst they can say is no.

    Reply ↓
  15. Ask for the Manager*

    For #2, every class I have ever taken has an evaluation to complete at the end of the class. If this is the case, I would be very explicit about my complaint right there. Often, it’s not just the trainer who sees my comments, but also their bosses. If you don’t have an evaluation to complete, you can contact the company that sponsored the training. That comment is gross, and nobody needs to be subjected to that while at work.

    Reply ↓
    1. approachable nerd*

      I can’t stress enough how important this is. Outside of the trainer being a consultant on their own, they are an employee representing their company. Let the company know about the trainer’s comment and that it gives you reservations about recommending them as a vendor.

      I would dread having an employee saying such a thing and never knowing about it as their manager, and never being able to intervene before it gets worse.

      Reply ↓
    2. DidIRollMyEyesOutLoud*

      I was coming here to say this exact thing. After receiving no response, I wouldn’t hesitate to contact the training organization and report what was said and the lack of response.

      Reply ↓
    3. sometimeswhy*

      Similarly, I once attended an HR for managers training during which the trainer, a person with a half dozen set of HR certification letters after their name, said something incredibly offensive about trans people at the end of the class and implied that they couldn’t tEchnIcAllY teach how to get around labor law with respect to them but anyone who wanted tips could see them after.

      I called it out at the time. I filled out the course eval and mailed it to the company instead of handing it to her. AND, I told the training coordinator at MY company in writing and HE complained to the trainers company. I don’t know what happened after that but pushing from a bunch of angles is an option!

      Reply ↓
  16. MCMonkeybean*

    LW1 – I agree that from what you’ve written here it’s hard to tell if the new job is really a bad for or if you’re just struggling to adapt to the change. But I have also been in the position of switching jobs and immediately regretting it and missing my old one!

    In my case, it was my first real job out of college and I worked there for eight years. I really liked it there and felt no need to ever leave. Then a few things happened that made me not necessarily feel like I definitely wanted to leave, but made me wonder what other companies were like. I got a job at another place downtown a few blocks down the street.

    Right away the new company felt like a worse fit but it was hard to parse what things I genuinely disliked and what things were just… different. It wasn’t far from my old building but juuuust farther enough away from the restaurants downtown that I found myself walking around at lunch much less often. There were different expectations around when you could take vacation that weren’t necessarily worse but were different than the flow I was used to. I was feeling frustrated in my role a lot because they had brought me in for a super niche role no one else knew much about and I was not good at communicating things to my bosses.

    The day they said they were considering switching to an open concept office is the day I reached out to someone at my old company to see if they had any positions open! They didn’t have an opening on my old team but recommended me to a different team and I’ve been there for 5 years now.

    I knew before I left there was a chance I’d want to come back. I have seen my company re-hire people who have left before so I knew it could be on the table and I tried very hard to leave on good terms. I gave three weeks notice and prepared a ton of documentation for my tasks to make the transition as smooth as possible.

    If you left on good terms, you can certainly ask! There is the chance that like with accepting a counter-offer they would now worry you’ve got one foot out the door, but you can try to be clear with your boss that you weren’t looking to leave this just seemed like a great opportunity but it hasn’t turned out like you hoped.

    But the lower pay and lack of growth opportunities seem like they would become s real reason to leave even if they hadn’t been driving you away yet. So is it really better to go back? Or would it be better to look for a new job somewhere else, armed with better information about what you want in a position?

    Reply ↓
  17. Mostly Managing*

    For OP #1 – I changed roles a few weeks back (this is my third week in my new role).

    The first week, there were tears (at home) because I missed actually knowing what I was doing and being good at my job. I missed knowing the names of everyone who stuck their head in my office to ask a question. I missed knowing the answers to those questions.

    The second week, I knew the answer to one or two questions, and the rest were handled by the woman whose role I took over (she’s on mat leave for a year).

    This week, I sort of know what I’m doing. The handover period is done, my colleague is gone for 13 months (1 year mat leave plus some well-scheduled vacation time) and I have to figure it out!

    In a few more weeks, I’ll be nearly as good at this role as I was at the last one. But it will totally take a few more weeks.

    In the first week, when I was ready to just quit and be unemployed, my husband (who is very wise) made a deal. If I still hate it at Easter, I can bail. But, I have to give it a fair chance. There are valid reasons I was willing to make the move, and those reasons have not changed. The learning curve is never fun, and by Easter I’ll have been in the new role long enough to know if I hate the job or just hate the learning curve (we already know I hate the learning curve!).

    Reply ↓
  18. AcadLibrarian*

    LW#1 – My mother always advised me that you will hate a new job for the first 6 months. It’s true. You think “what have I done????” Really give it 6 months.

    Reply ↓
    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      I find that funny because I’ve found I always *love* a new job for the first few months before the shine starts to come off the penny. Change can of course be difficult for many reasons, but new jobs are often exciting for people.

      Reply ↓
    2. Gritter*

      Perhaps my experience is different to many here, but I’ve never had a job I hated in the first week get any better.

      In fact I was in a similar position to OP1 last year, started new job and hated it straight away. I did try to stick it out for 6 months and on reflection that was a mistake. It didn’t get any better and I missed my chance to go back.

      My boss would have had me back in a heartbeat in the first month, but after 6 months I reached out and let him know I was looking again and by then they’d reorganized everything in the wake of me going and my old role just didn’t exist anymore. He wanted to take me back but no longer could.

      I ended up leaving for something else a couple of months later. I’m happier now, but if I could have my time again I’d have gone back straight away.

      Reply ↓
      1. State worker*

        My biggest regret of my life is not demoting back to my old job after I got my first promotion. Since it was internal within the same government, I had a right to return, but I convinced myself I had to stay for my career and that it would get better. It didn’t. It got worse. But I’m hesitant to advise the OP she should leave her new job without knowing what the red flags are.

        Reply ↓
  19. Eldritch Office Worker*

    #1 Just to be candid, if I had occasion to tell an employee that they both over socialized and had an attitude problem, I wouldn’t be welcoming them back even if I had never commented on their work ethic.

    That’s not necessarily the case for your old employer, but I do want to set expectations for you around that. In your situation, you should try to stick it out for a little while longer – change is hard! But if you decide this organization isn’t for you, I would be looking for something new, not stepping back into a role where you already had some strikes against you that could be compounded by leaving and coming back, which is something that always changes the dynamic in some way.

    Things certainly can’t just go back to the way they were. You’ve tipped your hand that you were unhappy enough in some way to seek a new opportunity, and for that reason alone it will be different.

    Reply ↓
    1. MsM*

      I don’t know, depends how minor the minor complaints were. Could’ve been mentioned in passing, could’ve been the boss saying “I don’t think this is an issue, but Person Who Doesn’t Have Any Authority Over You wanted me to say something, so this is me saying something,” could’ve been “well, we have to come up with something for the ‘needs improvement’ section of this performance review.”

      At any rate, I think it’s a far less important consideration than whether if OP does go back, they’re willing to stay long enough for the company not to feel burned if they do eventually end up moving on again.

      Reply ↓
    2. Qwerty*

      I missed that line in my first read. Having a bad attitude during times of stress is absolutely a problem with someone’s work and their work ethic. And being talked to about socializing too much means the manager has a concern about work ethic.

      OP, you have a history of not handling stress well and changing jobs is a stressful situation. It sounds like you weren’t happy at your old place, otherwise you wouldn’t have jumped at this one especially with so little research. At a couple weeks in, you are unlikely to even be fully onboarded, so that is really fast to fall into depression and write this place off.

      Also let go of your feelings towards your coworker who recommended the job. She loves it and has had good experiences – but everyone’s experience is different and different people enjoy different environments. It is on each of us to do our own due diligence and research on a company to determine if it works for us.

      Reply ↓
      1. Eldritch Office Worker*

        “OP, you have a history of not handling stress well and changing jobs is a stressful situation.”

        Excellent dot connecting, that’s definitely something the OP should reflect on.

        Reply ↓
  20. bananners*

    LW3, I had to deal with two employees who didn’t like each other (we all had our own offices but the suite was small and disconnected from the rest of the company). My advice to you is to set boundaries and outline the consequences for crossing those boundaries immediately. I didn’t do this and found myself acting as mediator for one or the other for MONTHS by trying to treat them like professional adults when they were acting like catty children. They showed me they couldn’t handle it and I kept giving them chances. It only ended because one was bad at their job and quit when they saw they wouldn’t meet the conditions of their PIP.

    In retrospect, I definitely handled the whole thing poorly. Learned a lot, though.

    Reply ↓
  21. Hyaline*

    LW3, I’d be paying a lot of attention to the tone and attitude behind these communications. If it’s very “our emergency is your problem,” “if you want the job you’ll jump as high as we say,” very little apology or recognition that this is inconvenient for you, a general feeling like you’re being treated you like a number in the queue…I’d have a very different read on the last-minute nature of things than if there was some warmth, understanding that this is not necessarily an easy request that they’re making, and apologetic tone for missing your initial response. Sometimes things are rushed or last minute, but how people approach those requests says a lot, IMO.

    Reply ↓
  22. Dinwar*

    #2: What I’ve learned is that people who uses phrases like that rely on people being too uncomfortable to respond. We generally try to get along in life, and that includes smoothing over other people’s errors. They get away with it by making YOU feel guilty for calling out THEIR problematic behavior. I’ve seen this used to cover up things far worse than disgusting phrases.

    This sort of thing makes me a bit angry, so I will apologize in advance if my tone is off. I’m not directing this at you at all. I’m trying to provide my framework for thinking about this, in case it supports you. I’ve had to throw people off sites before for this sort of thing, and I have zero patience for it. You absolutely did the right thing; my only issue with what you did is that you didn’t do more.

    Approach this like a safety incident. You just saw what is the equivalent of someone failing to tie down a load and causing another person to be smacked with rebar–not bad enough to warrant going to the hospital, but bad enough to get a nasty bruise. Are you the problem if you tell them to tie their load properly before moving their truck? Of course not! The problem is the person egregiously violating company policy. You reporting it isn’t a problem, it’s literally what you’re supposed to do. My company has fired people for failing to do this; it’s considered as much an obligation as wearing proper PPE or showing up on time.

    There’s another aspect of this to consider as well. It’s been clearly demonstrated (Behavior Based Loss Prevention, if you’re curious) that the most effective way to prevent incidents is to correct the behaviors that allow those incidents to occur, and to correct them before incidents occur. The problem isn’t, fundamentally, that this worker failed to tie down the load; it’s that the worker felt comfortable not doing things properly. That mentality doesn’t stop at causing bruises. Next time the rebar will break someone’s leg. Eventually it will impale someone. Or crush them. Do we need to wait for someone to die before taking action? No, absolutely not; the time to take action is these little things (in fact, I’d argue that the time to intervene is if you see the load shift, before it’s bad enough that anything falls off).

    This applies to harassment as well. The phrase used is not good. Really not good. Allowed to go unchecked this sort of behavior will fester, and eventually it won’t be phrases anymore. Just like you’d have a right and indeed a duty to the company to report a safety incident, you have a right and indeed a duty to report a harassment incident. This isn’t you making waves or causing trouble. This is you responding appropriately to a serious problem.

    Reply ↓
    1. CubeFarmer*

      I like this!

      According to my most recent workplace-harassment training, in my state, if you’re in any kind of management role, the sexual harassment law makes you responsible for reporting inappropriate behavior you witness–even if it wasn’t directed at you. If you don’t, and there’s a further incident with the other person, you have some liability for not addressing a hostile environment.

      I recently had to do this on behalf of another colleague whose LGBTQ status was raised as a concern during an interview process. Yikes! I pulled a trusted board member aside and told her what I had witnessed. I don’t think anything will come from that incident but I’ve covered myself just in case.

      Reply ↓
    2. tabloidtainted*

      I think this response is out of proportion with the situation that LW describes. A single sexist colloquialism is not harassment, nor is it a safety incident. The LW responded in the best way possible.

      Reply ↓
      1. Dinwar*

        “A single sexist colloquialism is not harassment, nor is it a safety incident.”

        You missed the point. I was providing a framework which should at least be familiar to most managerial types through which to assess the LW’s actions. I never intended to say that the comment was a safety incident; my intent was to say that it can be–and indeed should be–treated in the same manner. The LW was feeling guilty, so I gave one line of reasoning arguing that they absolutely should not feel that way.

        The history of safety also provides some insights as to how things like this work, which is why I mentioned Behavior Based Loss Prevention specifically. Small things build to larger things. In safety, missteps that don’t have any real impact are the warning sign that something’s gone wrong. If you deal with them at that stage, they’re pretty easy to fix. Someone didn’t fill out an inspection; make them go back and do it, or make a point to ask for it every day for the next week. That way they catch the issues before the equipment fails and hurts anyone. Similarly, by voicing objections to sexist statements you re-enforce that the culture does not tolerate them.

        As an aside, your reaction is exactly what happened when systematic, proactive safety protocols were put in place. The workers responded with “Aw, we don’t need that, never been a problem before!” Never mind the fact that Chuk lost two fingers to the device and Joe won’t go near it and it nearly took your arm off last time it broke. It’s such a common reaction that the course I took on BBLP had a section specifically devoted to how to handle such statements.

        The simple fact is you’ve got to draw the line somewhere. You’ve got to say “This is not acceptable.” If you leave it at “When there’s a problem I’ll deal with it”, that threshold tends to move, and surprisingly quickly. Further, think about what you’re saying at that point. Whether you intend it or not, you are in fact saying “As long as I can turn a blind eye I will.” (Lord Nelson reference there, FYI.) In safety, that’s essentially asking for volunteers to get maimed. In harassment, that’s asking for volunteers to be abused. In contrast, if you draw the line at “You will not make sexual statements, and especially not problematic ones, while working for this company as an employee, contractor, or vender”, you create an environment that allows people to fix problems before something worse happens.

        Reply ↓
  23. i like hound dogs*

    I notice most people saying that LW1 should give it more time, but … I’m not sure I agree. The LW sounds pretty regretful and like they left a situation they were ultimately pretty happy with. I once took a job (my supposed “dream job”) that turned out to be a dumpster fire. I quit two weeks in and went back to my old job and had no regrets. YMMV.

    Reply ↓
  24. LAM*

    With 5, focus on tasks you can do via telework that you are more efficient out of the office environment rather than your situation. If these tasks need to happen a lot, aka you would have enough for two remote days because of a backlog or frequency, the better.

    Deep down, much you can be remote depends on the work and how much they want to keep you not where you live. My work is largely in person and we’ve had to push back on requests to telework more than 1 day except for situational because of the nature of the work. Even with people knowing the work needs to be in person (how can you install an exhibit remotely!) or they would need to rely on others to pick up the load. Other departments can be remote more, but that’s because their work allows it. I say this as the work is the core of if your request goes forward, regardless of how sympathetic they may be of your situation.

    Reply ↓
  25. CubeFarmer*

    LW#1: we had someone leave a position several years ago because he wanted a shorter commute. He was really good at his job, and we were all sad to see him go. We hired a replacement who was simply not working out. Meanwhile, our former colleague absolutely HATED the new role. Long story short, our director had called our former colleague to ask a question about something after the replacement was fired. It came out during the call that the former colleague was miserable, and guess what? He came back!

    So, it can happen. OTOH, I can think of a few colleagues who left voluntarily that we were grateful to see out the door and if they reached out in the future we would not be interested in their return. Your return probably depends on how good a fit you were in the role.

    LW#2: I hope that you reported that comment to whoever is sponsoring these trainings and/or the person above your instructor. That’s INCREDIBLY sexist and inappropriate to make such a statement in a professional setting.

    Reply ↓
  26. tabloidtainted*

    LW1, I would probably ask for my old job back in your shoes. If it’s giving you enough stress and anxiety to affect your sleep and appetite, don’t feel like you need to stay there just to give it a shot.

    Reply ↓
  27. Shipbuilding Techniques*

    LW1, are you the new professional in the team adjacent to mine? :D
    I have been feeling worried that the awesome new person we hired is bound to be unhappy with our chaos. Not sure how to help, though–my team has its own problems.

    Reply ↓
      1. Shipbuilding Techniques*

        If you were the professional in question at my AEC industry firm, I think your recommending contact’s last name might have started with K.
        This feels very diabolical, heh heh.

        Reply ↓
  28. JustaTech*

    For LW#1, thinking about going back to your “old job” in a more general sense: I have had a few coworkers who “boomeranged” – they worked here a while, left for another company, and for whatever reason, came back, often but not always to their old position (or a very similar position). In a couple of cases this was because they went to a startup that didn’t go (very common in biotech). There was also a whole group of folks who trickled back after a layoff – when we had jobs again they were happy to come back and work for us.
    (One guy did it twice: left, came back, left, came back again, left again. I’m just waiting to see if he’s back one more time.)

    I’ve also seen this in Big Tech – folks will work for one Big Tech, and then decide they need something different (try out a startup, move to a new location, learn new skills) so they move on to another job, and then come back to their first company, though usually not in the exact same job.

    The big difference is that most of those folks were gone for a couple of years and both left and came back because of “normal” job motion (layoffs, wanted to learn something new, relocation), where it sounds like you’re feeling like not only is the grass not greener but it’s actually a swamp. (Not to denigrate wetlands, but they’re not great environments for humans.)

    If you’re sure the new job is Not Working and will Not Work, then yes, ask about your old job. But there’s no hard and fast rule that you can’t ever go back to your old company. It may not be the same job, but as long as you left under reasonably good circumstances you should be able to apply there again in the future.

    Reply ↓
  29. Always Tired*

    #4, I feel you. The frequency with which I say “The poor behavior of others does not excuse your own,” or “You can both be wrong in a situation. It’s perfectly possible you both are behaving poorly and need to check yourselves,” to grown men is directly related to how quickly that week’s bottle of wine disappears.

    Good on you for taking it head on without taking sides. As others are probably saying, it may be worth it to burn some capital trying to split them up.

    Reply ↓
  30. Calamity Janine*

    LW2, if you were wondering what that loud clattering sound was, that was my skeleton ejecting itself from my body at high speed at hearing your issue. it just ran away from the entire concept of a trainer saying this phrase in a professional setting that swiftly.

    yes, i am joining the chorus of people who have already thoroughly discussed how this isn’t right, first and foremost of whom is Alison. but if you’re surrounded by an industry where people think it’s still appropriate, maybe you in fact do need the helpful chorus popping up here like a particularly screamy set of oompa loompas to yell in alarm about how not great this is. oompa loompa doopity dye, when he says that we all just scream WHY, oompa loompa doopity dations, please do mention this in course evaluations… yeah i didn’t get a callback from Wonka Industries, however did you guess…

    this is an area where not only are you not wrong, but i think you should feel free to press against it on a continuing basis. and if you need an angle of attack that may allow you some wiggle room, feel free to use such – because while that’s not something you should need, in a just world, but the realities of a heavily biased industry means sometimes you have to play a very tiresome game of pretending you didn’t have a problem *personally* so you can talk about the problem being more than just you. it’s nonsense and we shouldn’t have to do it, and yet, if you feel like it’s the best and safest way for you to make waves, please feel free to use those tactics. here, especially, it might be useful to look at it in terms of you looking out for the company’s potential liability. “if some investor walks by, imagine what they might think!” may be a ‘safer’ way to bring it up. it’s relying on the tiresome trick of making yourself into a forced team *with* the company instead of *against* the company, when actually you are indeed against companies that support this sort of thing. unfortunately some people will write this off as “personal issues” until you bring up the purse-strings upon which all commerce depends.

    it stinks to have to figure out how to serve the spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down, and i know that i sometimes get rather aggravated at myself for having to use such tactics. it is not, so to speak, good for the soul. it should be balanced with words and company from folks who fully know it’s nonsense that you have to do this to make some forward progress. but at the same time… if it’s what you need to do for progress to be made, don’t feel like it’s an option that is off the table. you’re still going to be making progress. …even if you’re making that progress while gritting your teeth and muttering “don’t hate the player, hate the game” under your breath.

    Reply ↓
  31. Blue Pen*

    #3 – These rush job interviews have happened to me a few times during job hunting, and I find it to be a pretty obnoxious practice. I don’t like to be rushed, period, so this was never not going to bristle me, but I don’t like the implied entitlement to my time simply because I expressed interest in your job. I don’t really care that such & such only has time first thing tomorrow morning; don’t launch an interview process if you’re not ready. I’m sure the calculus would be different if I were in desperate need of a job, but broadly speaking, this is extremely annoying. And while I don’t necessarily consider it to be a red flag, it’s definitely a yellow flag for me.

    Reply ↓
  32. Emmett*

    LW #5, there is a third possibility where you bring up the commuting challenge and stay with the same employer but change to a different role that allows more telework. Consider if that’s something you want or not, but I don’t want you to be blindsided if your boss brings it up. This was an option (“option”) at my workplace where only certain offices and roles were subject to RTO mandates. However, the only way to advance professionally was in the more in-person jobs, and taking a more-telework role meant accepting a transfer and often demotion.

    Reply ↓
  33. Aspirational Yogurt*

    LW1, I had a similar experience early in my career. I was working a half time job that I loved, my team, the company (Company 1), everything. Except, once I finished grad school, I really needed to work full time, and there was nothing available in that company at that time. So I left for a similar full time position at a larger company (Company 2). I hated it and regretted it immediately. Company 2 overall was good, but my particular branch had a lot of problems, and my manager was terrible. I cried every night. I didn’t have the option to talk to my former manager and go back (my industry doesn’t work that way) and I needed to work full time, so I stuck it out, kept applying for positions at Company 1, but was never offered anything. After 9 months, got the opportunity to transfer to another branch, which was wonderful, great team, manager, everything. I ended up loving that job more than the one at Company 1.

    That was 20 years ago and I’m still with Company 2, have been promoted and changed departments a few times, but I still am very satisfied with my job. Company 1 had a really difficult time during the 2008 recession, laid a lot of people off, and has never really recovered. I realized that if I had gotten a job with them when I was applying in 2005-2006, I probably would have been laid off too.

    Reply ↓
  34. New Norm*

    Letter Writer 1 – I recently changed jobs and would strongly recommend you give it more time, and if you’re not happy, look elsewhere then. I recently changed jobs after being with a company 7 years, and my first 1 – 2 months were hard! I was not the expert anymore, I didn’t know where I fit, I was so unhappy, particularly the first 4 weeks I remember feeling sick to my stomach that I’d made te wrong decision. But now, 4 months in, I couldn’t be happier. It just took some adjusting time.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS